Rape accused granted bail for inconsistencies in mentally ill victim’s statements

A single bench of justice RM Joshi, during the hearing on March 25, observed that the statement recorded before the magistrate did not appear to have been made by the victim herself, but by a witness who had informed the victim’s mother about the alleged incident

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a 36-year-old man accused of raping an 18-year-old mentally ill girl from Thane, noting material inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and the evidence on record.

Bombay High Court (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

A single bench of justice RM Joshi, during the hearing on March 25, observed that the statement recorded before the magistrate did not appear to have been made by the victim herself, but by a witness who had informed the victim’s mother about the alleged incident. The court also referred to a psychiatrist’s counselling note, which stated that this was “not a case of sexual intercourse being done with the victim”, highlighting inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

According to the prosecution, the victim’s mother lodged a complaint in October 2024 at Kashimira Police Station alleging that the accused had dragged the girl into his house and assaulted her. Subsequently, the offence was registered and the man was arrested on October 7, 2024. During the course of the investigation, the victim was sent for medical examination, her statement was recorded, and the charge-sheet was filed.

The accused moved the Bombay high court last year, seeking bail on the ground that the evidence on record indicates inconsistencies in the statement of the victim recorded on different stages of the investigation.

Advocate Sana Raees Khan, appearing for the accusedalso submitted that CCTV footage on record did not show the victim entering the accused’s house.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, citing the serious nature of the offence. It argued that the victim is a special child who requires assistance to communicate, and therefore her statement recorded before the magistrate with the help of a witness should be considered valid.

However, the court noted that the CCTV footage did not show the victim entering the accused’s house. “When it is alleged that the accused has forcefully taken the victim to his house and that there is CCTV footage of the outer portion of the house, the same ought to have been reflected therein”, it said, adding that the possibility of the CCTV footage being manufactured cannot be ruled out.

Taking into account that the accused had no prior criminal record and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the court granted bail. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial court should decide the case independently on its merits.